Free and open challenge to anti-statists, open borders supporters

[William R]

If 10 million Muslims want to go to Michigan and live under sharia law there on their own property, why should I stop them?

You probably shouldn't but the country should. If Europe is any example limiting Muslim immigration is in our best interests. I fully expect in the next 25 years civil wars to break out in Europe as the Muslim population grows and clashes with the natives. I don't think the two cultures are compatible. After 9/11 Ron Paul suggested we end immigration from nations where terrorists come from. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he was talking about Muslim nations.

 

[Bryan]

at the risk of repeating myself a government by consent of the people can only last one generation.

after that, the children of the original founders are left with one option - "if you don't like it, leave."

There are certainly issues with parental rights vs. rights of minors here. Take a home owners associate for example. Say they have a rule that says "no bike riding in the streets". This would certainly affect all the children, but at what point is the responsibility placed upon the parents? Certainly if the child agreed to buy a house within the associates area then they would have no grievances. As well, if they don't like the rules then they can certainly leave and buy elsewhere, that doesn't seem unreasonable, does it? So at what point is it OK to have such terms agreed upon by a parent placed on a child, vs not?

 

[erowe1]

You probably shouldn't but the country should.

That seems really problematic to me. If I shouldn't do anything about it, then who is this "country" that should do something about it? And where does this country get the authority that I as an individual don't have?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Fundamentally this is just another debate between socialism and capitalism, under the working economic definitions.

Capitalsim = Private Ownership of Capital.
Socialism = Collective/State Ownership of Capital.

Those arguing for state ownership of land, are in fact, arguing for the socialist theory of property ownership. Those arguing for privatization of land are, in fact, arguing for the Capitalist Theory of property ownership.

Is this a fair premise, so far?

 

[teacherone]

There are certainly issues with parental rights vs. rights of minors here. Take a home owners associate for example. Say they have a rule that says "no bike riding in the streets". This would certainly affect all the children, but at what point is the responsibility placed upon the parents? Certainly if the child agreed to buy a house within the associates area then they would have no grievances. As well, if they don't like the rules then they can certainly leave and buy elsewhere, that doesn't seem unreasonable, does it? So at what point is it OK to have such terms agreed upon by a parent placed on a child, vs not?

that's not my point - my point is the myth of the social contract.

it makes no difference if my parents signed the constitution or the founders did hundreds of years ago.

i didn't sign it; i did not consent.

only the actual founders, the signers of a pact can claim consent - the rest are merely subjects under those originators.

 

[William R]

That seems really problematic to me. If I shouldn't do anything about it, then who is this "country" that should do something about it? And where does this country get the authority that I as an individual don't have?

congress. Commonsense legislation. Our entire immigration policy needs to be revamped.

 

[Bryan]

I wasn't asserting anything about what can and can't exist or should or shouldn't exist. We're trying to nail down a definition here. And definitions have to be posited and agreed upon, not discovered and proven. We can't even begin to debate whether there should ever be any states until we come to terms on what states are.

Fair enough. Agreed.

For defining a word like "state" we need to know what things we mean to include by that term, and what are the essential characteristics that those things have in common, and that provide the basis for our calling them that. We also need to think about what things we might want to exclude from the term and formulate the definition in a way that clearly excludes those things.

As I said prior, I think the important definition is that of the general public since they are the ones to be reached out to with a message.

Here, for example, it looks like you mean to include home owners associations as examples of states. I don't know if that was your intent or not. But if it was, then that would be a good illustration of how you're using a different definition than I use, since I wouldn't call home owners associations states.

Not really a state, just a clear example of mutual consent based on a geographical location.

Incidentally, I think the concept of consent was in the legal definition you provided earlier, in the phrase "control over all persons and things within its boundaries."

I think the questions there come back to those I asked for North Korea, can the individuals leave the state? What are the "reasonable" alternatives to that state? What are the grievances that make this an issue?

 

[ClayTrainor]

See the Rothbard definition on what is and isn't a 'state'. If it's consent, then I believe it is not a 'state', though it may be considered contractual government. But as per my blog here at the RP forums and as HB34 has aptly noted, 'the state' and 'government' are not necessarily the same thing.

This seems about right...

When I use the term "The state" I am using it as synonymous with an organization of people which lays and collects taxes on other people.

 

[William R]

A LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf

 

[erowe1]

that's not my point - my point is the myth of the social contract.

it makes no difference if my parents signed the constitution or the founders did hundreds of years ago.

i didn't sign it; i did not consent.

only the actual founders, the signers of a pact can claim consent - the rest are merely subjects under those originators.

This is one of the biggest things that keeps me from accepting the ideas of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. I do think there are certain natural obligations that exist within families which leaves me with a kind of collectivism. Other than that, I don't think I'm too far from where you guys are. Admittedly, I don't know exactly where exactly to draw the line of when one person has the rights to another person and when they don't.

 

[erowe1]

congress. Commonsense legislation. Our entire immigration policy needs to be revamped.

I don't understand. If I don't have that authority, then from whom did Congress get it?

 

[Bryan]

Fundamentally this is just another debate between socialism and capitalism, under the working economic definitions.

Capitalsim = Private Ownership of Capital.
Socialism = Collective/State Ownership of Capital.

Those arguing for state ownership of land, are in fact, arguing for the socialist theory of property ownership. Those arguing for privatization of land are, in fact, arguing for the Capitalist Theory of property ownership.

Is this a fair premise, so far?

I don't think so- in part, because it depends upon your definition of "state" and the attributes it holds. If a state is nothing other than a collection of individuals agreeing to specific terms, and them deciding to pool some of their private land for their mutual self-benefit, then what is the issue with that? Calling it socialism is just a derogatory term, at least in these parts.

 

[Bryan]

This seems about right...

When I use the term "The state" I am using it as synonymous with an organization of people which lays and collects taxes on other people.

So you are saying that all states must, by definition, contain non-consent? Why?

Again, I don't think that is the commonly held view.

 

[William R]

I don't understand. If I don't have that authority, then from whom did Congress get it?

Congress writes laws.

 

[teacherone]

So you are saying that all states must, by definition, contain non-consent? Why?

Again, I don't think that is the commonly held view.

please describe the process in which you consented to being ruled under the state which governs you.

 

[Carson]

All nations have many borders on many concepts. Are those willing to see national borders fall willing to see the other borders shown no respect as well?

 

[ClayTrainor]

If a state is nothing other than a collection of individuals agreeing to specific terms, and them deciding to pool some of their private land for their mutual self-benefit, then what is the issue with that?

There's already a term for that, and it's called a contract. The State and a Contract are not the same thing.

Calling it socialism is just a derogatory term, at least in these parts.

Derogatory or not, what you are advocating (State/American/National/Whatever ownership of land) is consistent with the working definition of socialism. Those who are advocating for privatization of border property are arguing in favor of Capitalist theory of property ownership, under the workign economic definitions.

You reject this?

 

[Bryan]

This is one of the biggest things that keeps me from accepting the ideas of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. I do think there are certain natural obligations that exist within families which leaves me with a kind of collectivism. Other than that, I don't think I'm too far from where you guys are. Admittedly, I don't know exactly where exactly to draw the line of when one person has the rights to another person and when they don't.

I agree with you on that, more or less. I tell you where I draw the line- it's on ones own public declaration of independence, and in many cases, maintaining their own self-preservation as proof of that. Age doesn't matter.

 

[William R]

Bottom line. Open borders is lunacy. The free movement of goods, services, and capital across borders yes!! People no!

 

[Bryan]

please describe the process in which you consented to being ruled under the state which governs you.

When one purchases land within a states boundaries, that was sold with strings attached (you will be ruled under the state) then they agree to those terms.

Again, that is not an argument that there should be no state.